Click to expand
It’ll have a torch-like air, they say.
Click to expand
It’ll have a torch-like air, they say.
You see this? This is JFK Jr. Drive in Golden Gate Park from over the weekend:
Another great nature shot from famous San Francisco photographer David Cruz. As always, He’s Everywhere You Want To Be
So this is a good time to review the rules:
“Can my dog walk around the park with me beyond the designated off-leash areas?
Yes, your four-legged friend may accompany you throughout the park if you both obey the leash laws of California.”
Otherwise, you’ll become another derided dog owner, like this one:
Remember, as soon as you use the term “voice control” you lose…
As promised, Jumping Taylor in a Fiesta. Wow:
And in the Financial, on California, near some fake cable cars:
More in Potrero Hill, on Bike to Work Day 2012:
And again in the Financial, being filmed by a radio-controlled chopper:
Matier and Ross say that there were donuts being done on the Bay Bridge – did anybody see that?
In closing, These Four Videos Showed Why Ken Block’s Recent “Gymkhana V” Filming was the Best Thing Ever.
Here’s your problem, it’s yet another off-leash dog in Glen Park:
Now, how would this affair end up getting described by a bad dog owner to, I don’t know, a simple-minded reporter the likes of CW Nevius?
Coyotes aren’t dangerous, dogs are dangerous.
“Animal Care & Control Concerned About Coyote Interactions
San Francisco – San Franciscans do not seem to be getting the message about how to coexist peacefully with local wildlife.
San Francisco Animal Care & Control has been notified about individuals who still allow their dogs illegally off -leash in active coyote areas despite education, posters, flyers, signs and barriers all warning dog owners to abide by the law and keep their dogs on-leash or, better yet, avoid the marked areas entirely. These irresponsible individuals are putting themselves, their dogs, and the coyotes and their pups at great risk (see video link below). Accordingly, after seeking expert advice and in collaboration with the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, San Francisco Animal Care & Control suggested closure of locations in Golden Gate Park where coyotes appear to be anxiously protecting dens.
San Franciscans share natural places with a variety of wildlife, including coyotes. Temporary park closures are for the comfort and safety of people, pets and wildlife during breeding season. Birthing and pup rearing has the local coyotes feeling hormonally more protective which may result in more assertive behavior (as in the video). Our goals are to give coyote families temporary relief from stress (dogs) while ensuring public safety. Preventing confrontations such as this is the best policy.
San Francisco Animal Care & Control receives many inquiries about options for removing the coyotes. Relocation is illegal under CA State law. It is also inhumane. Lethal removal is ineffective and unethical since another coyote will simply take its place, often within weeks. San Francisco Animal Care & Control and coyote experts feel that the local coyotes are here to stay and their hope is that the community learns to peacefully coexist with them.
San Francisco Animal Care & Control encourages the community to be responsible pet guardians; leash dogs where required and respect temporary park closures. Wildlife in San Francisco needs a little breathing room while its young are present. Urban wildlife is part of the health of San Francisco’s parks – part of the heritage and history of our area – and coexistence is possible with a little give-and-take.Link to film of dogs harassing coyotes in San Francisco:
The Department of Animal Care & Control is a taxpayer-funded, open door animal shelter. ACC provides housing, care and medical treatment to wild, exotic and domestic stray, lost, abandoned sick, injured and/or surrendered animals. ACC aims to rehome or reunite domestic animals with their guardians and to rehabilitate and release wildlife to their native habitat. ACC responds to animal related emergencies 24/7 including animal abuse and neglect as well as matters of public safety. Animal Care & Control is located at 1200 15th St. (at Harrison.)
Volunteer / Outreach Coordinator
Animal Care & Control
1200 15th Street
San Francisco, CA. 94103
The KTVU is all over This New Issue of Concern:
So, what a $100 handheld 315 Mhz Wireless Remote Key / Security Jammer / Code Scanner can do for you, at the very least, is allow you to prevent some loser’s car from locking up for the night, dig? Then, after watching the pigeon walk away, you can simply open the car doors and trunk and then collect all the sweet sweet booty inside.
Jamming seems a lot simpler than code scanning, non?
Anyway, this is what KTVU is ascared of showing you. From China With Love:
My funny Valentine is delighted – she’s gotten two Kate Spades and $5000 worth of travelers’ checks so far since Feb 14th. Really, it’s the gift that keeps on giving.
But please remember, “this product is a supplementary tool to unlock, and can only be taken as friends locksmith studies.” So, don’t actually steal anything using this device that’s made exclusively for stealing things.
*Wouldn’t really call somebody who uses a simple jamming device a “hacker,” but that’s just me.
“Note: This product is a supplementary tool to unlock, and can only be taken as friends locksmith studies. Please comply with related laws and regulations.
- Detect, receive, copy all kinds of car remote control signals, then command the car as freely as the car’s owner
- Working frequency range: 305~330MHz
- It receives the signal sent by the fixed code anti-theft system, save and copy the master’s remote control signal
- The effective distance is 100 metres
- Save thirty remote control signals
- Decodability chip: PLC fake rolling code(5326), EV1527, PT2262, HT12E, HT6014
- Fit the mostly anti-theft system
- 2.5″ Blue background light LED screen
- 2 * Retractable antennas
- Coverage 50-100 meters
- Powered by 9V 6F22 battery (included) or 9~12V DC input
Now, back in the day, the National Park Service was hiring snipers to hunt down the non-native Fallow and Axis Deer so that Tule Elk and other native species would have an easier life. Well, as detailed by Zachary Zoblig, the “Bambi Effect” kicked in like you wouldn’t believe. Thusly:
Click to expand
Good luck, Bambi.
Details of the plan, after the jump
Here’s the thing – if you’re renting a place in San Francisco and you’re paying your monthly rent to your roommate, chances are that you could be considered a subtenant and your roomy the “Master Tenant.”* Particularly when the rent for your unit is way undermarket, due to rent control let’s say, you might end up spending more for your space than the Master pays for the Master’s part of the apartment.
So if you’re paying $900 a month for your half of a two-bedroom and your Master Tenant in the other room is only kicking in $100 (to pay $1000 total to the landlord for the whole place), then you can take steps to get some of that money back and lower your rent to boot.
“A subtenant who believes he or she is paying more than a proportional share of the total rent may file a Tenant Petition against the master tenant on that basis. If the subtenant prevails, the Administrative Law Judge will adjust the rent to the proportional share and order the master tenant to refund any rent overpayments.”
Your San Francisco Rent Board just dealt with a subtenant/Master Tenant proportionality case. The names of the people involved aren’t important, but the situation is noteworthy, IMO. Let’s check it out.
Now, if you don’t like how the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dealt with your case with your roomie, you can appeal to the board. As here, from the meeting of August 4, 2009:
“The subtenant’s petition alleging that he paid a disproportional share of the rent pursuant to Rules ß6.15C(3) was granted and the Master Tenant was found liable to the subtenant in the amount of $10,800.00. On appeal, the Master Tenant alleges that he was unaware of the requirement that the amount of rent paid must be proportional; that the decision will present him with a financial hardship; and that the subtenant is going to be evicted due to his uncooperative behavior.
MSC: To deny the appeal on substantive grounds but remand the case for a hearing on the Master Tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Gruber/Crow: 5-0)”
See? The sub won big-time, to the tune of five figures because the rent split determined by the Master Tenant wasn’t proportional according to a judge and the full board.
But the master came back to say the ruling would be a hardship for him. From the meeting of November 17, 2009:
“The subtenant’s petition alleging that he paid a disproportionate share of the rent was granted and the Master Tenant was found liable to the subtenant in the amount of $10,800.00. The Master Tenant’s hardship appeal was granted and remanded for hearing. In the remand decision, the ALJ finds sufficient hardship to order a repayment plan in the amount of $150.00 per month. The Master Tenant again appeals, claiming that even the reduced amount will cause him severe hardship and possibly result in both tenants’ eviction from the premises.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Mosbrucker/Gruber: 5-0)”
Is this what you might call a Phyric victory? Maybe. It’s probably too early to tell. Oh well.
Check the San Francisco Rent Board website for deets on the rules, or see you after the jump.
*The County of Los Angeles doesn’t want to buy equipment that has the term “master” written anywhere on it, like on a hard drive, a DVD burner or a brake cylinder. But in San Francisco, we freely label people “Master Tenants.” It’s our thing.
You see, this is why we have Healthy Sundays diverting cars away from JFK Jr. Drive in Golden Gate Park. It’s so people can zip along at 20 MPH on their .8 horsepower electric skateboards. You see what this fellow is holding? That’s his gas pedal, wirelessly connected to the motor. No embarrassing cord for him!
GGP: 1, Dolores Park: 0
Click to expand.
Deets after the jump
So, all that is fair enough, as far as it goes. But, gees Louise, there are caveats galore that could be appended to the pithy advice found in the article. How about a link to the California Department of Consumer Affairs, where they have all sorts of advice about reparing and deducting, including this:
“Each of these remedies has its own risks and requirements, so the tenant should use them carefully”
Or as a commenter at SFGate.com suggests, check out Berkeley’s Nolo, “your legal companion since 1971.”
The Nolo outlet at 950 Parker in Berkeley.
Now back in the day, you could guess at the law and everything would generally work out. But those days are over. Basic ideas that were burned into the California Constitution in the 1800′s have been tinkered with incessantly. Thusly.
Now all that can be good or bad. If your former landlord is thinking about retaining your security deposit in bad faith, the law created by Senator Carole Migden‘s old Assembly Bill 2330 might give him or her reason to pause. So that’s good.
But let’s say your flaky roommate took off for Tibet two months ago and left some of his stuff around – exactly how you go about handling things is important. Very important. If you guess at the law or use your own sense of what’s right, then you might make painful mistakes. That’s bad.
Ces’t la vie en Calfornia.
Anyway, If your landlord delays fixes, consider repairing and deducting. How’s that for a headline?